|
IS
THE CATHOLIC TEACHING ON
"THE
PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY" SCRIPTURAL?
The whole discussion on the presumed "perpetual virginity
of Mary" goes beyond a minor technicality of Scripture.
It has far-reaching ramifications. Let us discuss this briefly.
It is quite clear that Catholicism does teach the idea of
Mary’s perpetual virginity. The authoritative and contemporary Catechism
of the Catholic Church (1994) declares, "The deepening
of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess
Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act
of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ’s
birth ‘did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity
but sanctified it.’ And so the liturgy of the Church
celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the ‘Ever-virgin’" (p.
126). The same Catechism quotes Augustine (d. 430)
as teaching that Mary "remained a virgin in conceiving
her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him, a virgin in carrying
him, a virgin in nursing him at her breast, always a virgin" (p.
128). One Catholic authority states, "The Church has
consistently taught the perpetual virginity of Mary: she
was a virgin before, through and after the conception and
birth of Christ" (Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic
Encyclopedia 1991, s.v., "Virgin Mary").
What does Scripture say? Definitely the Bible affirms that
Jesus was born of Mary and this young woman was a virgin
at the time of His birth. Gabriel, the angel of the Lord,
announced to Mary that she would bear a Son who would actually
be the very Son of God (Luke 1:26-33). Mary’s question
to this heavenly messenger seems quite clear: "How can
this be, since I am a virgin?" (Luke 1:34). This was
not asked with a degree of unbelief or consternation as might
have been found in the question of Zacharias to the same
angel (Luke 1:18ff). Mary’s question was simply a request
for information or clarification.
At this time, Mary was engaged, but not fully married. "When
His mother Mary has been betrothed to Joseph, before they
came together she was found to be with child by the Holy
Spirit" (Matt. 1:18). At this time, Mary was engaged
but was not fully married. The couple had not "come
together" yet. Notice this in other translations: "before
they came together" (Marshall’s Greek/English), "before
they came together" (KJV, RSV, NIV). Interestingly,
the Jerusalem Bible (a Catholic version) says, "before
they came to live together." Can it be that Catholic
teaching has influenced this rendering? After all, orthodox
Catholics do not believe that Mary and Joseph actually "came
together" at all in physical union as husband and wife.
It certainly would be logical, reasonable, and expected
that Mary would ask a question about how such a conception
would take place. How could she bear a son during this period
between betrothal and the sexual relationship of marriage?
It was impossible. She knew that she was still a virgin:
she had not yet "known" a man sexually. How, then,
could she have a child during her virginity? In other words, how
could she have a child before she and Joseph "came together" in
sexual relationship? Instead of this suggesting a hypothetical "vow" as
Catholic apologists would suggest, it points in the opposite direction:
she had every intention of entering a normal marriage and
bearing children the normal way.
What further evidence that Scripture offer? Scripture speaks
of the "brothers" of Christ (Matt. 12:46, 47; Mark
3:31, 32) and the "sisters" of Christ (Matt. 13:56;
Mark 6:3). His brothers were James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas
(Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3). These brothers were mentioned in
various scriptures (cf. John 7:3-5; Acts 1:14; 12:17; 15:13;
21:18; 1 Cor. 9:5; 15:7; Gal. 1:19; 2:9, 12; James 1:1; Jude
1:1). Instead of Mary remaining a virgin after the birth
of Christ, it would appear that this virtuous woman had five
sons and at least two daughters!
It is also important to realize that the Greek term adelphos literally
means "brother." Arndt and Gingrich (A Greek-English
Lexicon of the New Testament) renders it "brother." "Adelphos is
compounded from delphys, the womb, and the copulative a,
and hence means one born from the same womb" (The
New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology).
Thus, "Adelphos is used first of all for physical
brother, and adelphe for a physical sister" (Ibid.).
Although the term can have a wider meaning in (descendant
of the same parents, a person of the same nationality, a
near kinsman or relative, etc.), it generally should be taken
in the literal sense, as "male children of the same
mother."
Today, Orthodox churches contend that the brothers and sisters
of Jesus were actually children of Joseph from a previous
marriage. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that they were
cousins of the Lord and not true brothers and sisters, children
of Mary and Joseph. While this interpretation does go back
to the early post-apostolic church, Tertullian (ca. 160--220)
wrote of Joseph and Mary's own children (Ibid.).
Probably the "kinship" argument would not have
arisen if there was not the desire to preserve Mary's perpetual
virginity.
The reason that Catholics cannot give up this doctrine—regardless
of evidence—is quite simple: The existence of their
church and the reliability of their history depends on it.
(My supposition is that, in some degree, a denial of the "doctrine
of the perpetual virginity of Mary" would also seriously
undermine the reliability of the Eastern Orthodox churches,
since they place so much emphasis upon uninspired and fallible
tradition.) Why do I make this point about Catholicism?
(1) If Mary did not remain a virgin after Jesus’ birth,
then the papal pronouncements concerning the "Virgin
Mary" have been wrong, incorrect, and actual lies.
All of the "apparitions" (appearances) of the "Virgin
Mary" over the centuries to Catholic mystics have
been deceptive as well (see Quite Contrary by Timothy
Kauffman, Apparitions at Medjugorje: Divine or Demonic? by
Russell K. Tardo, and Mary: Another Redeemer? by
James R. White).
(2) Perpetual virginity of Mary has been a foundation
of the imposed celibacy of the Catholic priesthood and
order of nuns. Not only is imposed celibacy a false teaching
(1 Tim. 4:1-3), but Scripture requires the exact opposite: "Bishops" (KJV)
or, better, "overseers" (NASB, Greek) must be
married men (1 Tim. 3:1-2; Titus 1:5-7), just as "deacons"(KJV)
or, "servants" (Greek) must be married (1 Tim.
3:12). Catholicism teaches the exact opposite of Scripture.
(3) If the pronouncements of the so-called "Popes" (Matt.
23:9) have been wrong in regard to Mary and imposed celibacy,
then they are not true spokesmen for God and nothing else
they have promulgated through the centuries is dependable
(unless it was found earlier in Scripture).
(4) If "papal" pronouncements are proven fallacious,
then the entire basis of the Catholic religion is missing.
Every other false teaching also falls: the "veneration" (worship)
of Mary, the "bodily assumption" of Mary into
heaven, the "co-redeemer" and "co-mediator" status
of Mary, the "immaculate conception" and sinlessness
of Mary, and many other doctrines of Mary (i.e., Marian
doctrines), not to speak of dozens of other teachings in
other doctrinal categories.
(5) If Mary did not remain a virgin, over one billion
followers are found to be in a false cult. Instead of the "only
true Church of Jesus Christ," Catholicism becomes
a false way of salvation, a false "plant" which
Christ Jesus will one day be "uprooted" (Matt.
15:13-14).
Karl Keating is a leading Roman Catholic apologist. He is
intelligent, he writes fluently, and his influence is extensive.
He, along with other Catholic defenders, must strongly support
the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity regardless
of the weighty Scriptural arguments against this. If he fails
to do so—with vigor and conviction—his whole
church is shown to be wrong and he personally is declared
to be a false teacher.
The issue of Mary’s continued virginity goes far beyond
a point of Biblical interpretation for Catholicism. The Roman
Catholic’s eternal salvation is at stake.
Richard Hollerman |
